Chapter 24: Women in Ministry — Paul Said What He Said

I want to start this chapter with two admissions. The first is that I hold a position on this topic that will make me unpopular with almost everyone. The second is that I hold it without smugness, without superiority, and without the slightest desire to lord it over anyone — male or female.

I am complementarian. I believe Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 2:12 is binding. Not cultural. Not contextual. Not limited to the church at Ephesus or the peculiarities of first-century Roman society. Binding. Universal. Grounded in creation, not in culture.

And I also believe that the pulpit as it currently exists shouldn’t exist in its current form for anyone. Which means that the way most churches frame this debate is wrong before the first word is spoken.

Let me explain.

Paul’s Command

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

That’s the verse. And it says what it says. Paul doesn’t permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man in the context of the church. And before anyone objects that this was cultural, that Paul was addressing a specific situation in Ephesus, that the women in that particular church were causing problems and this was a temporary corrective — read the next verse.

“For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” (1 Timothy 2:13)

Paul grounds the command in the order of creation. Not in culture. Not in the social dynamics of first-century Ephesus. Not in the education level of women at the time. Not in any temporal, situational, or contextual factor. He goes all the way back to Genesis. Adam was first formed, then Eve. The order of creation establishes the principle. And the principle is that teaching and authority in the church belong to men.

This is not a popular position. Egalitarians hate it because it limits women. Complementarians who hold it often hold it badly — with a rigidity and a condescension that makes the position look like misogyny rather than theology. And the secular world looks at it and sees nothing but patriarchal oppression.

But I hold it because Paul said it. And Paul grounded it in creation. And I don’t get to overrule Paul because the culture has moved on. The culture has moved on from a lot of things Paul said. That doesn’t make Paul wrong. It makes the culture wrong.

But the Pulpit Shouldn’t Exist

And here is where it gets complicated. Because I’ve just spent an entire chapter arguing that the one-man pulpit is unbiblical. That the participatory model in 1 Corinthians 14 is the New Testament pattern. That the institutional hierarchy of pastor-over-congregation is a human invention, not a biblical mandate. And now I’m saying women shouldn’t stand at the front of a thing I don’t think should exist.

Fair point. So let me thread the needle.

The principle Paul establishes is not about a pulpit. It’s about teaching and authority. Those are the two things — teaching and authority over men — that Paul restricts to men. And in a participatory model, where there is no pulpit, where nobody stands at the front, where the body functions as a body with everyone contributing — the question shifts.

It shifts from “can a woman preach from the pulpit?” to “what does teaching and authority look like when nobody stands at the front?”

And the answer is that teaching and authority still exist in a participatory setting. When a man stands up in a house church and opens the Scriptures and explains what they mean and applies them to the lives of the believers in the room — he is teaching. When a man exercises spiritual leadership by guiding the direction of the meeting, correcting error, and establishing doctrine — he is exercising authority. These functions exist whether there’s a pulpit or not.

And Paul says those functions belong to men. Not because men are smarter. Not because men are more spiritual. Not because women are less capable. Because he grounded it in creation order, as we saw above. I didn’t design the order. I don’t fully understand the order. But I accept it because the apostle who wrote more of the New Testament than anyone else said it was so and grounded it in Genesis.

Women in the Participatory Model

But here’s what the participatory model does that the institutional model can’t: it makes room for women to participate without violating Paul’s principle.

In the one-man pulpit model, participation and teaching authority are the same thing. If you speak from the front, you’re exercising authority. Period. So women are either allowed to do everything (egalitarian) or nothing (hardline complementarian). There’s no middle ground because the structure doesn’t allow one.

In the participatory model, the structure creates natural space. A woman can share a psalm. A woman can offer a word of encouragement. A woman can pray. A woman can ask a question. A woman can tell the body what God has done in her life. A woman can exercise her spiritual gifts — mercy, hospitality, exhortation, helps, giving — without exercising teaching authority over men. Because in a body where everyone speaks, not every act of speaking is an act of teaching authority.

This is closer to what the early church actually looked like. Priscilla helped teach Apollos (Acts 18:26). The daughters of Philip prophesied (Acts 21:9). Women were involved. They participated. They served. They spoke. But the authoritative teaching and the governance — the elder function — was restricted to men. And the two things coexisted without contradiction in a model where the body functioned as a body.

The modern debate has been warped by the modern structure. When you have a one-man pulpit, the question becomes binary: can a woman stand behind it or not? But the New Testament never imagined a one-man pulpit. The New Testament imagined a body. And in a body, there’s room for every member to function according to their gift, within the order that God established.

Incorrect Practice Doesn’t Damn

And now I need to say something that will make some of my complementarian friends uncomfortable.

A woman who teaches men in a church is wrong about her role. But she is not lost. Incorrect practice doesn’t damn, any more than incorrect doctrine damns. If a woman confesses Christ, rests in His finished work, and has been regenerated by the Spirit — she is saved. She may be wrong about her role in the body. She may be exercising a function that Paul says belongs to men. And I would lovingly, gently disagree with her about that. But I would not for one moment question her salvation.

Because if I’m honest, I’m wrong about things too. I’m sure there are positions in this book that I’ve gotten wrong. I don’t know which ones yet — if I did, I’d fix them. But I know with certainty that I don’t have perfect theology. Nobody does. And if God’s grace covers my doctrinal errors, it covers hers. If God’s grace covers my practical errors, it covers hers. If God’s grace covers the man who baptizes infants when he shouldn’t, and the man who uses grape juice instead of wine, and the man who observes the Sabbath on Sunday instead of Saturday — then God’s grace covers the woman who teaches when Paul said not to.

This is the same principle we established in the chapters on liberty and on the covenant: God’s standard is perfection. Only Christ met it. Everyone else falls short in different places. And the beauty of the finished work is that the falling short was already paid for. The woman who teaches isn’t sinning against a law that will condemn her. She’s living in error that grace has already covered. Same as me. Same as you. Same as everyone in every church in the history of the world.

I hold the principle and extend the grace simultaneously. Because that’s what the gospel does.

The Debate Generates More Heat Than Light

I want to step back for a moment and make an observation about this entire topic.

The women-in-ministry debate has consumed an enormous amount of the church’s energy over the past fifty years. Egalitarians have made it a justice issue — equal rights, equal access, equal opportunity. Complementarians have made it a control issue — drawing lines, guarding pulpits, enforcing boundaries. And both sides have generated far more heat than light.

The egalitarians look at Paul’s command and see oppression. They see centuries of men using Scripture to silence women, to limit their gifts, to keep them subordinate. And they’re not entirely wrong about the history. The church has used this passage to oppress women. Men have weaponized it. The history is real and it’s ugly.

But the answer to misuse isn’t dismissal. The answer to men behaving badly with a true principle isn’t to throw out the principle. It’s to hold the principle correctly. And holding it correctly means holding it the way Paul held it — with the gravity of creation order and the tenderness of a man who honored women as co-laborers in the gospel.

“I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.” (Romans 16:1)

Paul calls Phebe a servant — diakonos — of the church. He commends her by name. He tells the Romans to receive her. He honored women. He worked alongside them. He valued their gifts. And he also said they shouldn’t teach or have authority over men. He held both things at the same time because they don’t contradict each other. Honoring women and maintaining creation order are not in tension. They’re in harmony.

The complementarians, for their part, often hold the principle without the grace. They enforce the rule with the kind of rigid severity that makes it look like they enjoy the restriction. They guard the pulpit like bouncers at a club instead of brothers in a body. And the result is a version of complementarianism that looks more like male insecurity than theological conviction.

I want nothing to do with either extreme. I look at Paul. I accept what he said. I accept why he said it. I extend grace to those who disagree. And I move on to what matters more. Because in the sweep of this entire book, the question of who teaches in the church is important, but it’s not the main thing. Christ is the main thing. And I’d rather spend my energy pointing people to Him than policing who gets to stand where.

Tenderness

I need to say something here that most complementarian men won’t say, because they’re afraid it sounds like weakness.

Women, in general, carry a tenderness that most men do not. Not all women. Not exclusively women. But as a pattern, women tend to see the hurting person in the room before the men do. They tend to feel the weight of someone else’s grief before the men notice it. They tend to hold the broken thing gently while the men are still figuring out that it’s broken.

This is not a lesser gift. It is a greater one.

Christ was tender. He wept at the tomb of Lazarus (John 11:35). He cooked breakfast for the men who betrayed Him (John 21:9-12). He held children when the disciples tried to send them away (Mark 10:13-16). He washed feet (John 13:4-5). The strongest person who ever lived was the most tender. And I think women, as a pattern, carry that tenderness more naturally than men do. Men are trained out of it. Women hold onto it. And the church needs it desperately.

This is why participatory ecclesiology (Chapter 23) matters so much for women. In a one-man pulpit model, women are spectators. They sit and listen and maybe teach children in the back room. But in a participatory body where everyone contributes — “every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation” (1 Corinthians 14:26) — the gifts of mercy, encouragement, hospitality, exhortation, comfort, prayer, and wisdom are exercised by everyone, in real time, face to face. And in that environment, the woman who carries tenderness naturally isn’t restricted. She’s essential. She’s the one holding the body together while the men are arguing about supralapsarianism.

The restriction Paul placed is narrow: authoritative teaching and governance. The freedom is wide: everything else. And everything else is where most of the actual ministry happens.

Head Coverings

While we’re in Paul’s instructions about women, we have to address 1 Corinthians 11. And this one is simpler than most people make it.

Paul establishes the authority structure: “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). That’s the substance. The rest of the passage discusses the visible expression of that structure.

And then Paul answers his own question: “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (1 Corinthians 11:15).

The hair is the covering. God provided it. It’s the natural rendering of the authority structure Paul is describing. The substance is the headship order. The covering is the hair. No additional fabric is required because God already supplied the visible sign.

And Paul closes the discussion: “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11:16). No such custom. The churches don’t bind this. Paul raises the topic, explains the principle, identifies the hair as the covering, and then says the churches have no binding custom about it.

In the framework, this is substance over formality (Chapter 10). The substance is the authority structure God designed. The formality is whether you add a piece of cloth on top of what God already provided. And Chapter 21 (liberty) applies: if a woman’s conscience leads her to wear a covering, she’s free. If it doesn’t, she’s free. Conscience decides matters of liberty. The hair is the covering. The authority is the thought behind it. And the thought was settled before the fabric was invented.

“Verse 15 is about natural hair. Verses 5-6 are about an additional covering. Two different coverings.”

The Greek words are different (katakalupto in verses 5-6, peribolaion in verse 15), which some use to argue for two separate coverings. But Paul’s argument flows toward resolution, not escalation. He raises the question of covering, discusses it through 14 verses, and then says the hair is given her for a covering. That’s the answer, not a separate topic. If Paul intended a mandatory additional garment, verse 16 — “we have no such custom” — makes no sense. You don’t spend 15 verses establishing a binding rule and then say the churches have no custom about it.

“The early church universally practiced head coverings. You’re breaking with tradition.”

The early church also practiced baptismal regeneration, catechumen classes, and liturgical worship. Length of tradition doesn’t equal scriptural mandate. The question is what Paul said, not what later churches practiced. And Paul said the hair is given for a covering, and the churches have no such custom.

“If a woman cuts her hair short, she has no covering and the principle breaks down.”

Then her conscience and her husband are the authority, not the church. Paul’s instructions are about the principle of headship, not about hair length requirements. A short-haired woman who honors the authority structure has the substance. A long-haired woman who despises it has the formality without the substance. Same as baptism without regeneration — the water without the Spirit.

“This is a salvation issue for some believers. You’re being dismissive.”

I’m not being dismissive. I’m applying the same principle I apply to every other liberty issue: if your conscience binds you, follow it. If a woman believes she should wear a covering, she should wear one. Her conscience is hers, and the Spirit guides it. But binding other women’s consciences on a matter Paul himself called a non-custom is the kind of imposition Chapter 21 was written to address. The covering is not a hill to die on. Christ is the hill. Everything else is conscience.

Objections and Answers

“Paul was speaking culturally — it doesn’t apply today.”

Paul grounded the command in creation order, not culture — as I showed in the opening section. “Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). That’s not a cultural observation. It’s an ontological statement. You can’t dismiss it as cultural without dismissing the creation account itself. And if Paul was wrong about creation order, you have a bigger problem than women in ministry.

“If the pulpit shouldn’t exist, the question is moot.”

Partly, and I addressed this in the body of the chapter. If there’s no pulpit, there’s no pulpit to fight about. But the principle doesn’t require a pulpit to apply. It applies wherever teaching and authority happen — house church, Bible study, any setting where the body gathers and the Word is taught with authority. The structure changes. The principle doesn’t.

“You’re being inconsistent — extending grace on doctrine but not on practice.”

I’m extending grace on both. I said explicitly that a woman who teaches isn’t lost. Incorrect practice doesn’t damn. Grace covers. That is exactly the same grace I extend to the man who holds incorrect doctrine. The principle is clear. The consequences of violating the principle are not eternal damnation. They’re error. And error is what grace was designed for.

“Galatians 3:28 says there is ‘neither male nor female’ in Christ.”

Paul is talking about salvation, not about church order. There is neither male nor female in Christ — meaning both men and women are equally justified, equally accepted, equally loved, equally saved. But equal standing before God doesn’t mean identical function in the body. The eye and the hand are equal members of the body, but they don’t do the same thing. Galatians 3:28 is about soteriological equality, not functional interchangeability.

“Restricting women from teaching wastes the very gift of tenderness you say they carry.”

It would, if teaching from a pulpit were the only way to serve. It isn’t. As the Tenderness section above argues, the participatory model gives women a thousand ways to exercise that gift without standing behind a pulpit that shouldn’t exist in the first place. The restriction is narrow. The freedom is wide. And the woman holding the body together while the men argue about doctrine isn’t restricted. She’s the most important person in the room.

For Further Study

The following passages speak to the themes of this chapter and are commended to the reader for independent study.

The order of creation as the ground for complementarian roles: Gen. 2:7; Gen. 2:18; Gen. 2:20-23; Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Cor. 11:7-9; 1 Cor. 11:15-16; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1-6; Tit. 2:5.

Women participating and serving in the body of Christ: Acts 1:14; Acts 9:36-39; Acts 16:14-15; Acts 18:2; Acts 18:26; Acts 21:9; Rom. 16:1-2; Rom. 16:3-4; Rom. 16:6; Rom. 16:12; Phil. 4:2-3; 2 Tim. 1:5; 2 Tim. 3:15.

Teaching and authority restricted to men: 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6.

Equal standing before God regardless of role distinctions: Gen. 1:27; Gal. 3:28; 1 Pet. 3:7; Acts 2:17-18; Joel 2:28-29; 1 Cor. 11:11-12.

Tenderness and mercy as gifts of the Spirit, not lesser gifts: Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 12:28; Gal. 6:2; 1 Thess. 2:7; 1 Thess. 5:14; James 2:13; Prov. 31:20; Prov. 31:26.

Incorrect practice covered by grace, not damning: Rom. 14:1-4; Rom. 14:10-13; Rom. 15:1-7; 1 Cor. 4:5; James 4:12; Col. 3:13; Eph. 4:2; Eph. 4:32.